quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

Why would the US have halted construction from 1927 to 1941?

Suggest you fill the hole with the states that haven't had a BB in a while and don't get one under your program:

Illinois (you list her as the class leader, but she's not in the list and you say only 8 are built), Alabama, Wisconsin, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire.

If we assume no Great Depression, there's no reason the US couldn't manage a rate of just under 1/year and build all of these - figure three classes of four ships each (or pick eight of them and add two more as extra South Dakotas).

With no Washington Naval Treaty, USS Wyoming might well have been kept around. If she isn't, she and Arkansas will almost certainly be scrapped together in favor of new construction (being the only 12" guns in the fleet). Arkansas was kept around as a singleton solely because of the treaties.

Also, note that your CV build rate is lower than the Essex class, despite the USN building fewer BBs than OTL. Need to kick that up a notch, too!

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.

All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!

quote:

ORIGINAL: derhexer

Hey, Gary, who is your avatar a picture of - Thales of Miletus?[sm=character0231.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.

All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!

quote:

No it's a bust of Socrates, about 6 inches in height. Me mum brought it home from a trip to Greece once upon a time. It's one of my favorite knick knacks. I took a photo of it with the light hitting it thus and sort of like my photographic handiwork. It looks like something taken at a museum doesn't it?

EDIT: BTW who is your avatar picture of. I've seen the pic around the net a couple times and am curious. Also are you of any relation to a guy over at Civ Fanatics who goes by "Formaldehyde". He used to have the same avatar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some comments on the new stuff;

Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.

Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.

I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.

Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.

So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;

4x CL Furutaka (4x2 8in) ~9500t / 32knts
4x CL Myoko (4x2 9.2in) ~10500t / 34knts
2x CL Chokai (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 34knts
2x CA Maya (2x2 12.2in) ~14500t / 34knts
4x CE Agano (4x2 6in) ~6000t / 29knts
4x CL Mogami (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 35knts
4x CA Tone (2x2 12.2in) ~15000t / 34knts
2x CE Oyodo (3x3 6in) ~6500t / 30knts
2x CA Kasuga (3x2 12.2in) ~16500t / 34knts

Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;

Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.

'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.

'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.

'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.

In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.

Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?

Well, the Porter class DDs from ~1935 had the SP 5"/38 twins, which aren't that different. The SP twin weighs in at 34000kg vs the DP twin at 43400kg. Likely a switch to DP guns would mean only 3 twins on a similar sized hull; also likely performance of an early DP twin might be slightly lower than the late war ones (in terms of rate of train and elevation).

So I would say you could definately do it by ~'35/'36, maybe by ~'30 if there was a serious DD race on. Remember historically the Farragut class was the first new DD design in the USN for over 10 years.

The 10cm/65 Type 98 was designed in 1938, and while I dont think there anything about the gun itself that prevents development before that, getting an acceptable mounting and rammer may be the limiting factor, as these were what set it apart as such an excellent weapon. I would say no earlier than 1936 given an accelerated timeline, but remember that this also means there needs to be a desire for a rapid-fire, lighter gun for AA work by that time.

Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it [8D]. Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.

Springsharp; yes, that is indeed what I use (~6 year experience with it), though I run the numbers that generates through my own spreadsheets since SS tends to be a little too optimistic sometimes, and a little too pessimistic at others. Making sure numbers and performance line up with historical classes is always key.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.

Make it task-oriented. Something like this:
(1) Surface Combat, large ships support - good range, lots of torpedoes, larger guns, good speed, some ASW
(2) AA CV Support - good range, lots of DP guns, some ASW. Speed to match CVs
(3) Escort - lots of ASW, quick-firing guns (against PT boats), not very quick
(4) Local patrol - small range, some torpedoes, and ASW

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it [8D]. Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?

Which ones don't make sense? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?

Which ones don't make sense? [&:]

Deutschland class:
Lützow originally was a Admiral Hipper as you will know quite well. It was only used for this class to avoid keeping a ship with the name "Deutschland" for psychological reasons to avoid "Deutschland is sunk". Ludwig Adolf WIlhelm von Lützow was a land commander in the liberation war against Napoleon. This specific name was chosen to hide the sale of the "real" Lützow to the Soviet Union, so that the expected warship "Lützow" was still in use.
Reinhard Scheer and Graf Maximilian von Speed were admirals in WW1. So a fourth ship would likely have the name of another admiral (perferably from WW1), not a land commander. In fact, Admiral Hipper makes absolute sense for a 4th ship of that class.


Admiral Hipper class:
Prinz Regent Luitpold would correctly be written "Prinzregent Luitpold". If Germany had the historic political development, this name is very unlikely. NS-Germany wouldn't name a ship after a member of a royal family, especially if he hasn't been of such military significance to ignore that.
Kronprinz - the same. "Crown Prince" isn't an appropriate name for a nacional socialist Germany.

Königsberg class:
Why should Germany use English names for their cruisers? To be able to give the name "Köln" to two ships of the same class? [;)] Cologne = Köln! Also: Munich = München.
This class was also called the "K-class", because all of its ships were named after cities with starting with a K.
The Emden wasn't of that class as you know fore sure. It was given that name, as the first new ship after WW1 was supposed to have the name of the famous SMS Emden from WW1. So depending on WHEN your ships are built, Emden is a suitable name for the bigger classes as well.
Other K-Cities would be for instance:
- Krakau
- Konstanz
- Krefeld
- Kassel
- Kiel
- Koblenz
- Kaiserslautern
- Kleve

Also: If you can't write an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) in Germany, the correct way to spell the letter is ae, oe, ue. So it is appropriate to write "Köln" "Koeln" - not "Koln"